and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Hide Tags

In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held t [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Jul 2008, 08:00

7

This post receivedKUDOS

26

This post wasBOOKMARKED

Question 1

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Question Stats:

37%(04:13) correct
63%(03:09) wrong based on 52

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 2

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Question Stats:

48%(02:12) correct
52%(03:06) wrong based on 44

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 3

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Question Stats:

56%(02:44) correct
44%(00:43) wrong based on 41

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 4

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Question Stats:

61%(02:25) correct
39%(00:43) wrong based on 41

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 5

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Question Stats:

69%(02:50) correct
31%(01:34) wrong based on 35

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 6

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Question Stats:

59%(02:51) correct
41%(00:57) wrong based on 37

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 7

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Question Stats:

42%(01:36) correct
58%(02:02) wrong based on 38

HideShow timer Statistics

In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians by the treaty establishing the reservation. Although this treaty did not mention water rights, the Court ruled that the federal government, when it created the reservation, intended to deal fairly with American Indians by preserving for them the waters without which their lands would have been useless. Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands — i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws — and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation.

Some American Indian tribes have also established water rights through the courts based on their traditional diversion and use of certain waters prior to the United States’ acquisition of sovereignty. For example, the Rio Grande pueblos already existed when the United States acquired sovereignty over New Mexico in 1848. Although they at that time became part of the United States, the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations. This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine. What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition, and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States. This pragmatic approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963), wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application to it of the Winters doctrine. Therefore, the reserved water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens’ water rights as of 1848, the year in which pueblos must be considered to have become reservations.

Q8: The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from public lands primarily in order to do which of the following?A. Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not to apply to pueblo landsB. Imply that the United States never really acquired sovereignty over pueblo landsC. Argue that the pueblo lands ought still to be considered part of federal public landsD. Support the argument that the water rights of citizens other than American Indians are limited by the Winters doctrineE. Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing the traditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians

Q9: The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true?A. The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens.B. Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.D. Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights.E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.

Q10: According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation?A. It was challenged in the Supreme Court a number of times.B. It was rescinded by the federal government, an action that gave rise to the Winters case.C. It cited American Indians’ traditional use of the land’s resources.D. It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by the reservation’s inhabitants.E. It was modified by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California.

Q11: The primary purpose of the passage is toA. trace the development of laws establishing American Indian reservationsB. explain the legal bases for the water rights of American Indian tribesC. question the legal criteria often used to determine the water rights of American Indian tribesD. discuss evidence establishing the earliest date at which the federal government recognized the water rights of American IndiansE. point out a legal distinction between different types of American Indian reservations

Q12: Which of the following most accurately summarizes the relationship between Arizona v. California in highlight text, and the criteria citing the Winters doctrine in the last sentence of first paragraph?A Arizona v. California abolishes these criteria and establishes a competing set of criteria for applying the Winters doctrine.B Arizona v. California establishes that the Winters doctrine applies to a broader range of situations than those defined by these criteria.C Arizona v. California represents the sole example of an exception to the criteria as they were set forth in the Winters doctrine.D Arizona v. California does not refer to the Winters doctrine to justify water rights, whereas these criteria do rely on the Winters doctrine.E Arizona v. California applies the criteria derived from the Winters doctrine only to federal lands other than American Indian reservations.

Q13: The "pragmatic approach" mentioned in hightlight text of the passage is best defined as one thatA grants recognition to reservations that were never formally established but that have traditionally been treated as suchB determines the water rights of all citizens in a particular region by examining the actual history of water usage in that regionC gives federal courts the right to reserve water along with land even when it is clear that the government originally intended to reserve only the landD bases the decision to recognize the legal rights of a group on the practical effect such a recognition is likely to have on other citizensE dictates that courts ignore precedents set by such cases as Winters v. United States in deciding what water rights belong to reserved land

Q14: The passage suggests that the legal rights of citizens other than American Indians to the use of water flowing into the Rio Grande pueblos areA guaranteed by the precedent set in Arizona v.CaliforniaB abolished by the Winters doctrineC deferred to the Pueblo Indians whenever treaties explicitly require thisD guaranteed by federal land-use lawsE limited by the prior claims of the Pueblo Indians

Show Tags

Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held t [#permalink]

Show Tags

15 Jul 2008, 19:30

1

This post receivedKUDOS

1

This post wasBOOKMARKED

vksunder wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q8:The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawnfrom public lands primarily in order to do which of the following?A. Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not toapply to pueblo lands.No, passage states This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine.B. Imply that the United States never really acquired sovereignty over pueblo landsThe passage cites the example related to water treaty/reservations so wrongC. Argue that the pueblo lands ought still to be considered part of federal publiclands.No, because of "the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands"D. Support the argument that the water rights of citizens other than American Indiansare limited by the Winters doctrine.No, the passage also mentioned other rules by court in addition to Winters doctrineE. Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing thetraditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians.Correct--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q9:The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 were the only criteriafor establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true?Note criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 is "Later decisions, citing Winters"

A. The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation wouldnot take precedence over those of other citizens.B. Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.D. Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created withreserved water rights.E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly inorder to reserve water for a particular purpose.Only E is stressed the rule (3) line 28--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q10:According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing theFort Berthold Indian Reservation?A. It was challenged in the Supreme Court a number of times.B. It was rescinded by the federal government, an action that gave rise to the Winterscase.C. It cited American Indians’ traditional use of the land’s resources.D. It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by the reservation’s inhabitants.passage says "Although this treaty did not mention water rights"E. It was modified by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q11:The primary purpose of the passage is toA. trace the development of laws establishing American Indian reservationsB. explain the legal bases for the water rights of American Indian tribesC. question the legal criteria often used to determine the water rights of AmericanIndian tribesD. discuss evidence establishing the earliest date at which the federal governmentrecognized the water rights of American IndiansE. point out a legal distinction between different types of American Indianreservations

Show Tags

Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held t [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Jul 2009, 02:53

In Winters v. United States(1908), the Supreme Court heldthat the right to use waters flow-Line ing through or adjacent to the(5) Fort Berthold Indian Reservationwas reserved to American Indiansby the treaty establishing the reservation.Although this treaty didnot mention water rights, the Court(10) ruled that the federal government,when it created the reservation,intended to deal fairly withAmerican Indians by preservingfor them the waters without which(15) their lands would have been useless. Later decisions, citingWinters, established that courtscan find federal rights to reservewater for particular purposes if(20) (1) the land in question lies withinan enclave under exclusive federaljurisdiction, (2) the land has beenformally withdrawn from federalpublic lands — i.e., withdrawn from(25) the stock of federal lands availablefor private use under federalland use laws — and set aside orreserved, and (3) the circumstancesreveal the government(30) intended to reserve water as wellas land when establishing thereservation.Some American Indian tribeshave also established water rights(35) through the courts based on theirtraditional diversion and use ofcertain waters prior to the UnitedStates’ acquisition of sovereignty.For example, the Rio Grande(40) pueblos already existed when theUnited States acquired sovereigntyover New Mexico in 1848. Althoughthey at that time became part of theUnited States, the pueblo lands(45) never formally constituted a partof federal public lands; in anyevent, no treaty, statute, or executiveorder has ever designatedor withdrawn the pueblos from(50) public lands as American Indianreservations. This fact, however,has not barred applicationof the Winters doctrine. Whatconstitutes an American Indian(55) reservation is a question ofpractice, not of legal definition,and the pueblos have alwaysbeen treated as reservations bythe United States. This pragmatic(60) approach is buttressed by Arizonav. California (1963), wherein theSupreme Court indicated that themanner in which any type of federalreservation is created does not(65) affect the application to it of theWinters doctrine. Therefore, thereserved water rights of PuebloIndians have priority over othercitizens’ water rights as of 1848,(70) the year in which pueblos mustbe considered to have becomereservations.

Q25:The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawnfrom public lands primarily in order to do which of the following?

A. Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not toapply to pueblo landsB. Imply that the United States never really acquired sovereignty over pueblo landsC. Argue that the pueblo lands ought still to be considered part of federal publiclandsD. Support the argument that the water rights of citizens other than American Indiansare limited by the Winters doctrineE. Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing thetraditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q26:The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 were the only criteriafor establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true?

A. The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation wouldnot take precedence over those of other citizens.B. Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.D. Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created withreserved water rights.E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly inorder to reserve water for a particular purpose.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q27:According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing theFort Berthold Indian Reservation?

A. It was challenged in the Supreme Court a number of times.B. It was rescinded by the federal government, an action that gave rise to the Winterscase.C. It cited American Indians’ traditional use of the land’s resources.D. It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by the reservation’s inhabitants.E. It was modified by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California.

The primary purpose of the passage is toA. trace the development of laws establishing American Indian reservationsB. explain the legal bases for the water rights of American Indian tribesC. question the legal criteria often used to determine the water rights of AmericanIndian tribesD. discuss evidence establishing the earliest date at which the federal governmentrecognized the water rights of American IndiansE. point out a legal distinction between different types of American Indianreservations

Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held t [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 Oct 2012, 04:18

1

This post receivedKUDOS

With a beautiful 28 on TOEFL, I always thought that I am good at RC but this test actually knocked me off!!!It's really tough! I answered all the questions wrong!! I hope I wouldn't face it in real GMAT!

Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held t [#permalink]

Show Tags

17 Oct 2013, 15:13

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held t [#permalink]

Show Tags

17 Oct 2013, 15:38

1

This post receivedKUDOS

1

This post wasBOOKMARKED

Guys,

I just went through this passage and made me feel horrible. By far, one of the toughest reading ever. But, this made me think about how to approach a tough reading in the exam. I could learn two lessons out of it:

(a) How to find the topic: It took me a while to figure out the main topic, as I was expecting something in the line of "clash between federal state and native americans" and so on. But I realized that GMAT is ALWAYS prone to mention it in the first two sentences of every reading. In this case one should have caught that the topic was about "...right to use water..."

(b) Once one find the main topic, keep the pace to reach the opposing views (swings): In this text, it became clear to me that there were the "legal" and the "practical" views. Confronting them is the main role of the second paragraph, and then the passage becomes easier to flow.

I understand these involve a lot of common sense, but the importance of them become evident only in a tough reading like the one above.

Please, share any of your thoughts about a particular way to approach this passage, as well.